Name of Student: Margaret Kimball
Name of Course: CC 403-01
Date of Submission: December 16, 2009
Assignment Number: Major Essay 03

Injustice in Media: The Moral Ambiguity of Television Characters

            The American people are subjected to the injustice of television which does not reflect their espoused moral values.  Although in 2007 the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reported that 82.7% of the US population consists of individuals who claim to belong to an organized religion which promotes morality, TV shows consistently display a disregard for these morals (qtd. in US Census Bureau).  Furthermore, a majority of television programs display disdain for those who follow organized religion. This essay will consider how reduced censorship has led to this injustice and the impacts upon religion, women’s movements, viewers, and advertisers.  The essay will conclude with recommendations for the rectification of this moral injustice.

1. History

            The history of decreased moral standards on television is closely related to changes in censorship practices.  Richard Worringham and Rodney Buxton explain that when issues such as the representation of African Americans, homosexuals and women came into question in the 1970’s, standards of censorship were changed for greater inclusivity.  However, while righting one injustice, the change in censorship left an opening for an increase in immoral behavior on TV.  Production companies exploited this weakness in order to create more “edgy” programming in hopes of increasing ratings.  Actor Gregory Peck described this change by comparing modern heroes to those of classic Hollywood saying, “Generally, my characters were dignified and brave men who did their duty stoically. Today, the heroes are the anti-heroes of yesterday. They're motivated by hatred, greed and violence. They are rude, vulgar, ill-educated and incapable of making an effort because they are totally selfish and devoid of morals” (qtd. in Hammond).  Opting for moral ambiguity in television characters creates flawed heroes who cannot be considered role models for Americans. 

2. Impacts

            The decrease in morals has been marked by negative portrayals of organized religion on television dramas.  Christopher Gildemeister reports that the majority of all religious references on television are negative.  Those who are presented in the most negative light are the laity or non-clergy members of various religions.  They are depicted as crazy extremists, hypocrites who go against their own espoused morals, or in some other negative light, more than 50% of the time (Gildemeister).  This is amazing when contrasted with the 82% of the American population who claim to belong to a religion (US Census Bureau).  The majority of viewers are being mocked by the entertainment industry.  Erin Brown reports that a Culture and Media institute poll reveals that 61% of Americans feel that their values are under attack by the media and 43% believe that the media are on a campaign to weaken religious values.   The true values of the American public can be seen in the fact that 57.8% of the positive portrayals of religion are seen in reality television (Gildemeister).  “Real” Americans are religious and they are not afraid to display their faith on national Television.  These statistics call for a reality check on the part of production companies who claim that they want viewers to be able to identify with characters on TV.  Americans are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist and their television counterparts should be as well.

            Modern women are also mocked through immoral TV characters.  Rather than helping to boost female self-sufficiency, a decrease in morals works to corrode the self-esteem of working women.  Changing standards in television in the 1970’s allowed strong independent female characters such as Mary Tyler Moore to realize their potential in the workplace (Worringham and Buxton).  Today however Dalton Ross argues that leading ladies do more to damage the image of working women than to bolster it.  He points to female professionals in modern comedies as sex-driven, easily flustered, and immoral characters who are incapable of competent work in the presence of an attractive man.  Sassy, smart-talking women who can hold her own in the work place are repeatedly being defeated by men due to low moral standards (Ross).  This does not liberate women; it enslaves them to their base desires.  The immoral characters on television are telling women that they are powerless against temptations and not really culpable for their own decisions.  This is a new form of injustice whose impacts upon women in the workplace may prove devastating.

            The exposure to poor morals on television is not without consequence.  Studies have found a negative correlation between hours spent watching TV and the moral values of viewers.  This means that those who spend a significant amount of time being subjected to immoral messages on television are less likely to classify certain behaviors as wrong. Gudrun Schultz reports that issues such as sex outside marriage and abortion, which are frowned upon by most religions, find opposition from 26% and 27% of heavy viewers respectively.  This is in contrast to opposition from 39% and 44% of light viewers (Shultz).  Shultz adds that it has been discovered that the desire to perform charitable acts is decreased with an increase in viewing with only 11% of heavy viewers (compared to 24% of light viewers) donating to charitable causes and 27% performing volunteer work (compared to 56% of light viewers).  Television works as a socializing medium which tells viewers what is acceptable in their society.  Viewers emulate their televised counterparts. This means that when the morality of television is decreased, there is a corresponding decrease in the morality of society. 

            One of the most common complaints about a lack of morals on television is the fact that there seem to be no ramifications for immoral behavior.  Peter Hammond comments on the fact that pregnancy and disease are rarely associated with the flagrant extramarital sex which is shown on television.  Yahya Abdul Rahman presents percentages for this showing that 56% of television shows and 67% of those shown in primetime present sexual behavior while only 10% addressed relevant health or moral issues.  Lying, cheating, and stealing are similarly written off as deserving no punishment by production companies.  However Anushka Asthana uses the example of reality TV show The Apprentice to illustrate the fact that viewers like to see villains punished and good deeds rewarded.  When one contestant stood up for a fellow contestant on the UK version of the show the “hero” became the viewer favorite.  Similarly when a contestant cheated to get ahead viewers cheered to see the woman fired for her actions.   Asthana details how viewers enjoy discussing why the immoral behavior of some contestants should be punished and how they look forward to seeing moral characters rewarded.  In a move which may surprise the profit-hungry media, it seems that shows with an “old fashioned” focus on right and wrong can still keep audiences on the edge of their seats. 

            Television companies present their viewers with conflicting excuses for moral ambiguity.  While viewers complain of the lack of repercussions for immoral acts, production companies declare that this is what makes television programming a fantasy.  Apparently ignoring the statistics of a decrease in morality correspondent with TV viewership, Gabrielle Birkner shares the claim that viewers already know right from wrong and do not need a lesson from the television.  The television offers moral escapism where acts do not reap consequences. Birkner says that the appeal of these shows is the fantastical ability to “get away with” anything and their stark contrast with reality.  On the other hand, Mickey O’Conner presents the argument that moral ambiguity is popular in television today in order to make characters seem more real.  Viewers supposedly find it easier to relate to a flawed hero.  The affability of such characters is of less concern than the plausibility of a fallible character that does not always have the best motives.   While the data presented in this essay indicates that viewers would prefer characters that are able to overcome moral barriers and villains who are either redeemed or punished for wrongdoings, television shows prefer to rely on questionable characters to increase ratings. 

            Corporations which advertise during TV programming are suffering from the lack of morality.  Customers protest when corporations seem to support immoral behavior by advertising during certain programs.  The controversial CBS drama Swingtown in particular has been unpopular with advertisers, reports Brian Steinberg.  Both Philips North America and Proctor and Gamble decided not to advertise during the program.  They did not wish to give support to a show which regularly depicts experimentation with sex and illegal substances (Steinberg).  Perhaps more importantly, their customers do not want them to support the series.  As a result, Michael Ausiello reports, despite claims that the show was well received and executed CBS decided to cancel the series after one season.  In reference to airing Swingtown CBS president Nina Tassler declared “it was a risk, we took it, and we’re proud of it” (qtd. in Ausiello).  Despite the fact that fans object to morally offensive content, the media are proud to take risks and constantly test the limits of their moral license.   It is when production companies are hurt financially that they consider the risk too great.

3. Recommendations

            The first step in correcting the injustices associated with immoral programming is to solicit feedback from viewers.  While many conflicting groups lobby to have their voices heard by Hollywood, it would be in the best interest of production companies to create focus groups and send out surveys in order to discover what people like and dislike about their programming and what they truly want to see.  While an angst ridden immoral character or a sex crazed career woman may do well at the Golden Globes is it really what the viewers want?  This should be established not by ratings but rather by open communication with a diverse sample of the American public. 

            Another important step is to balance messages of intolerance with positive messages about religion.  The television show Bones does an exemplary job of displaying positive interactions between Muslims, Atheists, and Christians and shares a message of religious tolerance while simultaneously highlighting the frictions which do exist in society.  This is a far more realistic representation of the dynamic at work in American society and a model which should be considered for other programs.  If intolerant messages are balanced with messages of tolerance not only would members of organized religions feel better represented, but viewers may learn to exercise greater tolerance in their own lives.

            Immoral behavior must see negative consequences as it does in reality.  In classic Hollywood, gangster films would usually lead viewers to the conclusion that “crime doesn’t pay”.  The original Ocean’s 11 held this tenant as the group lost a friend along with their “loot”.  This is in contrast with the modern remake and many other criminal shows where the only downside to crime is getting caught.  The desire which viewers have expressed to see immoral behavior punished begs for a return to the concept that “crime doesn’t pay”.  Misbehavior should be reprimanded, employees who cheat their employers and abuse their workplace should lose their jobs, and criminals should be reformed or sent to prison.  Additionally, health and spiritual consequences should be considered.  Characters should contract diseases or injury and be made to take responsibility for their reckless actions.  Immoral characters should feel guilt (especially if they are not intended to be seen as villains) and wish to atone for their actions.  Television characters need to reform in order to create a stronger connection with the audience and to socialize individuals positively.

            Television shows should attempt to maintain balance between “good and evil” and to represent some genuinely good characters.  Using USA Network’s original programming as an example, the character Adrian Monk from Monk can be considered a genuinely good character.  While he does have neuroses which add complexity to his character, he shows few moral flaws in his devotion to justice and to his friends.  Morally complex characters can be found on shows such as White Collar and Burn Notice where Robin Hood-like heroes exist on the edge of the law and cooperate with the Police to help individuals in distress.  While these characters do create moral ambiguity they engage in few immoral activities on screen.

            Changes in regulations have caused the injustice of flagrant immorality to permeate the television world.  Characters and scenarios engage in immoral actions and mock religion on a regular basis.  This trend shows disregard for Americans who are members of an organized religion and has also been associated with trends in decreasing morality in American society.  These weak characters attack the self-esteem of viewers and create prejudice.  It is essential that television companies begin to consider the values and desires of the American public more carefully and adjust programming accordingly.

Works Cited

Asthana, Anushka. “The Apprentice is the Most Moral Show on Television”. Guardian.    Guardian News and Media Ltd., 2008. Web. 11 December 2009.             <www.guardian.co.uk...>.

Ausiello, Michael. “It’s Official: CBS Axes ‘Swingtown’”.  EW. Entertainment Weekly, 2009.     Web. 11 December 2009. <ausiellofiles.ew.com>.

Birkner, Gabrielle. “’90210’: Leave Your Morals With the Maid”. Sun, The. New York Sun,         2008. Web. 11 December 2009. <www.nysun.com...     with-the-maid/84967/>.

Brown, Erin. “Hollywood’s Morals ≠ America’s Morals”. Culture and Media Institute. Culture      and Media Institute, 2008. Web. 11 December 2009.             <www.cultureandmediainstitute.org>.

Gildemeister, Christopher. “Faith in a Box”. Parents TV. Parents Television Council, 2006. Web. 11 December 2009.   <www.parentstv.org...>.

Hammond, Peter. “Minds, Morals and Movies”. Frontline Fellowship. n.p., 2006. Web. 11            December 2009. <www.frontline.org.za>.

O’Conner, Mickey. “The Humanist: Shonda Rhimes Hones In on Ethical, Moral Grey Areas”.      Seattle Pi. TV Guide, 2009. Web. 11 December 2009.         <www.seattlepi.com...>.

Rahman, Yahya Abdul. “TV and Sexual Content in Light of Islamic Morals”. Islam the Modern   Religion. n.p., 2008. Web. 11 December 2009.         <www.themodernreligion.com>.

Ross, Dalton. “Misleading Ladies”. EW. Entertainment Weekly, 2002. Web. 11 December 2009.             <www.ew.com...>.

Shultz, Gudrun. “TV Viewing Hazardous to Moral Health, CMI Study Finds”. Life Site News.     Life Site News, 2007. Web. 11 December 2009.         <www.lifesitenews.com>.

Steinberg, Brian. “Advertisers Don’t Party with CBS’ Swingers”. Advertising Age 79.26 (2008): 1-26. Communications and Mass Media Complete. Web. 11 December 2009.

US Census Bureau. “Religious Composition of US Population: 2007”. US Census Bureau. Pew    Forum, 2007. Web. 11 December 2009.     <www.census.gov...>.

Worringham, Richard and Rodney Buxton. “Censorship”. Museum of Broadcast    Communications. Museum of Broadcast Communications, 2008. Web. 11 December         2009. <www.museum.tv.